Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Increasing Intelligence
Increasing Intelligence
Increasing Intelligence
Ebook699 pages10 hours

Increasing Intelligence

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

The finding that working memory training can increase fluid intelligence triggered a great number of cognitive training studies, the results of which have been fiercely debated among experts. The finding also prompted a surge of commercial versions of these working memory training programs. Increasing Intelligence overviews contemporary approaches and techniques designed to increase general cognitive ability in healthy individuals. The book covers behavioral training and different electrical stimulation methods such as TMS, tDCS, tACS, and tRNS, along with alternative approaches ranging from neurofeedback to cognitive-enhancing drugs. It describes crucial brain features that underlie intelligent behavior and discusses theoretical and technical shortcomings of the reported studies, then goes on to suggest avenues for future research and inquiry.

  • Summarizes the history of attempts to raise intelligence
  • Describes the intelligence construct and the cognitive mechanisms thought to be at the core of intellectual functioning
  • Provides an overview of the neurobiological underpinnings of intelligence
  • Discusses the efficacy and limitations of behavioral training approaches and brain stimulation methods aiming to increase performance on working memory and intelligence tests
  • Examines the effects of neurofeedback, exercise, meditation, nutrition, and drugs on cognitive enhancement
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 30, 2017
ISBN9780128134306
Increasing Intelligence
Author

Norbert Jaušovec

Norbert Jaušovec obtained a doctorate degree in psychology in 1985 at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He started his professional career as a school psychologist. He has been employed at the University of Maribor since 1984 (until 2007 at the Faculty of Education and at the Faculty of Arts since then). In 1996, Dr. Jaušovec was elected full professor for the domain of educational psychology. His scientific research deals with the cognitive processes that are involved in expert problem solving. The goal of his research is to relate different physiological measures such as heart rate and EEG to differences in problem solving between gifted and average-ability individuals. He also aims to transform theoretical findings into knowledge that can be used to improve students’ problem solving ability. Besides universities in Slovenia, Dr. Jaušovec has lectured at a number of distinguished universities in Europe and was, or still is, a member of the editorial board of the following journals: The Curriculum Journal (Taylor and Francis), BMC neuroscience (London: BioMed Central), and The Open Neuroimaging Journal (Hilversum: Bentham Science). As first author or co-author, Dr. Jaušovec has published a wide variety of works, including three scientific monographs, two professional units and one textbook. He has published several scientific and professional articles which have more than 2000 citations. Affiliations and Expertise University of Maribor, Slovenia; Neuropsychology, Educational Psychology

Related to Increasing Intelligence

Related ebooks

Psychology For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Increasing Intelligence

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Increasing Intelligence - Norbert Jaušovec

    Increasing Intelligence

    Norbert Jaušovec

    University of Maribor

    Department of Psychology

    Slovenia

    Anja Pahor

    University of Maribor

    Department of Psychology

    Slovenia

    Table of Contents

    Cover

    Title page

    Table of Contents

    Copyright

    Acknowledgments

    Chapter 1: The Mystery of Intelligence

    Abstract

    1.1. Intelligence—the most valued trait

    1.2. Can we boost intelligence?

    1.3. Educational interventions for higher cognitive competence

    Chapter 2: The Biological Background of Intelligence

    Abstract

    2.1. Brain structure

    2.2. Neuroelectric measures of the brain at rest

    2.3. Brain function and neurobiological theories of intelligence

    2.4. Processing speed and working memory

    2.5. Sex differences in intelligence, brain structure, and function

    Chapter 3: Raising Intelligence by Means of Behavioral Training

    Abstract

    3.1. The Mozart effect

    3.2. Types of training: theory, memory, brain, and personal bias

    3.3. Metaanalyses and review papers: improving fluid intelligence with training

    3.4. The Jaeggi et al. study

    3.5. COGITO

    3.6. Research from our lab

    3.7. Video games: with fun to more intelligent brains?

    Chapter 4: Changing Brain Activity, Increasing Intelligence: Transcranial Electrical and Magnetic Stimulation

    Abstract

    4.1. Transcranial electrical brain stimulation

    4.2. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

    4.3. tDCS and tACS as a tool to modulate intelligence

    4.4. Noninvasive brain stimulation in working memory research

    Chapter 5: Other Approaches: From Neurofeedback to Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs

    Abstract

    5.1. Neurofeedback

    5.2. Exercise

    5.3. Meditation

    5.4. Nutrition and cognitive-enhancing drugs

    Chapter 6: Once Upon a Time We Were on the Moon

    Abstract

    6.1. Why become more intelligent?

    Index

    Copyright

    Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

    125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

    525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States

    50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

    The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

    Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

    This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

    Notices

    Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

    Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

    To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

    British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

    A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

    ISBN: 978-0-12-809407-5

    For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

    Publisher: Nikki Levy

    Acquisition Editor: Emily Ekle

    Editorial Project Manager: Barbara Makinster

    Production Project Manager: Punithavathy Govindaradjane

    Designer: Mark Rogers

    Typeset by Thomson Digital

    Acknowledgments

    Increasing Intelligence is a book about intelligence and the possibility of improving it with interventions ranging from classic cognitive training to directly influencing the brain. The topic has been fiercely discussed with a line of reasoning often driven by beliefs and opinions rather than facts provided by research. Anja and I have tried to provide the reader with an unbiased overview of the state of the art in the research field. We are inclined to be on the side of those who think that intelligence can be increased, probably because our own research has shown positive results.

    Here we would like to thank the participants in our experiments who solved endless boring tasks that at first glance made no sense, although as ensured by the experimenter, they presented a crucial part of the study. Not to mention EEG preparations ruining the hairstyle of our female participants, bewilderment caused by the NIRS setup, and tingling scalp sensations during transcranial alternating current stimulation. All in the name of science …

    Chapter 1

    The Mystery of Intelligence

    Abstract

    Intelligence is a precious asset, highly valued in society. It is not surprising that bold claims, which on the one side, stress the genetic influences on intelligence and, on the other side, state that it can be raised via cognitive training, cause fierce discussions among scientists and catch the attention of media and the general public. Several hypotheses have tried to explain why, in the history of human evolution, no organ has grown faster than the brain. It is likely that a combination of social and ecological factors promoted the proliferation of neural precursor cells, making our brain the most complex organ. Intelligence has been linked to academic performance and career success, therefore in the 20th century much energy has been devoted to the design of preschool and early school interventions that would raise intelligence. In contrast, new age approaches are mainly conducted in controlled laboratory experiments showing promising results, although a definite conclusion is still out of reach.

    Keywords

    phylogenesis

    motivation to control

    encephalization quotient

    illusory superiority

    Ashkenazi

    Abecedarian Project

    Venezuelan Intelligence Project

    Head Start Program

    Few questions have generated such passionate discussions in the scientific community than those related to intelligence and intelligence testing. To give some examples: Arthur Jensen (1969) published an article in the Harvard Educational Review (HER) titled "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?," in which he argued that compensatory education in the US failed to produce lasting beneficial effects on children’s intelligence quotient (IQ) and achievement, therefore the premises on which these programs were based should be reexamined. Nine years later, he admitted that the firestorm that was ignited by his writing came as an unpleasant surprise. Less than 10% of the 123 pages long article dealt with ethnical differences suggesting that genetic factors may be the reason for the one standard deviation lower performance of Afro-Americans as compared to whites. The reaction was swift and severe, with regular near-riotous demonstrations by students at colleges where Jensen was invited to speak. His office was picketed and his classes were regularly disrupted or, when lecturing at other universities, cancelled at the last minute. Students’ newspapers were filled for weeks with fierce statements against his research, suggesting that the university should get rid of him. The violence of student activists escalated to the point to which it threatened to get out of control. At that time, the campus police assigned two bodyguards to accompany Jensen around campus (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988). Even 9 years later and, as far as Australia, there was still need for police protection (Jensen, 1978).

    The media were among the first to give full coverage on Jensen. The New York Times, the Times Magazine, and local newspapers throughout the United States reported on the topic. The Times Magazine, after publishing a lengthy article entitled: Jensenism, n. The Theory that IQ Is Determined Largely by the Genes, received more letters than any other issue since the assassination of President Kennedy (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).

    The reaction of colleagues was mixed—condemning the rude treatment on the one hand, while declaring their own disagreement with Jensen’s conclusions, on the other. Few publically agreed with Jensen’s statements, albeit, privately and in letters they showed support for his ideas. Shortly after the paper appeared in the HER, the American Anthropological Association held a convention at which they passed a resolution condemning Jensen’s position and encouraged members to fight racism with all available means.

    Twenty-five years later, The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) sparked almost the same obfuscation as Jensen’s (1969) article, although the controversy was less physically violent. Jim Naureckas (1/2/1995) in Extra!, a magazine of the national media watch group (FAIR) in an article titled Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve’s Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race, analyzed the media responses. His conclusion was that The Bell Curve received broad media attention, mainly sharp criticism, but also some acceptance of premises and evidence. In Naureckas’s opinion and in the view of some of the magazine editors referred to later, the book was part of a campaign favoring and justifying racism.

    Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics. The fund’s mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that genetically unfit individuals or races are a threat to society. […] Another person whose advice Murray and Herrnstein benefitted especially from—and who shows up constantly in their footnotes—is Arthur Jensen, whose very similar claims about blacks having innately lower IQs were widely discredited in the 1970s. The Pioneer Fund has given more than $1 million to this giant in the profession, as Pioneer chief Weyher describes him (GQ, 11/94). And it’s easy to see why: Eugenics isn’t a crime, Jensen has said (Newsday, 11/9/94). Which is worse, to deprive someone of having a child, or to deprive the child of having a decent set of parents?

    My third example is anecdotal, based on my own experience. I started my professional career at the University of Maribor, where I was given a 3-year grant to investigate the relation among academic success, intelligence, and creativity in first year undergraduates. My research report would have probably ended up unnoticed on a library bookshelf, or in the best case, would have been discussed by a university committee that would spend years ruminating about the same issues without ever arriving at a solution. However, at that time, in former Yugoslavia, the Universities organized biannual meetings, which took place at Dubrovnik (now Croatia). The general theme of the conferences was University Today, but each time a different topic, either educational or organizational, was chosen as the conference’s main motto. The topic of the 1987 conference was creativity in education and I was invited to give a presentation. The event was picked up by local media with a short report in the education section. The only thing reported about my talk in Dubrovnik was that the average IQ of students from the faculty of agriculture was lower in comparison to students of other faculties. This was a marginal finding used to describe sample characteristics. The difference was expected, because the agriculture program was at that time a 2-year undergraduate program, while the others were 4-year university programs. It is well established that high correlations are found between measures of intelligence and educational attainment.a In a review of 16 studies, Ceci (1991) estimated that the correlation ranges between 0.50 and 0.90. Shortly after the appearance of the short note in the newspaper, I received a phone call from the secretary of the faculty of agriculture, informing me that I am not allowed to continue the research at their facility. Soon after the grant was discontinued, after only 1 year of research. The story does not end here. In 1996, 9 years later, I was up for promotion to tenure track. I did not pay much attention to the process, but when it ended our faculty commission representative asked me what I had done to offend the dean of the faculty of agriculture, because he strongly opposed my promotion.

    Would the reaction be the same, if instead of differences in IQ scores I reported differences in maximal oxygen uptake between students who aspired to be either teachers of physical education or psychologists? Will the book Race and Sport, in which Dutton and Lynn (2015) explicitly state that West Africans and those of West African descent dominate male short distance running, provoke a similar hostile reaction as The Bell Curve? Not likely, or perhaps just for the six pages in Chapter 7, in which race and intelligence differences are discussed. Indeed, Jensen (1969) himself reported several examples of Afro-American infant’s superior performance on different motor tests, which was nearly one standard deviation above white norms, and a developmental IQ of about half a standard deviation above white norms. To my knowledge, these data were never identified as racist.

    Intelligence is a precious asset needed in many contexts, and highly valued in society. Thus it is not surprising that considering intelligence as a constant that is completely dependent on natural selection, which started in Africa some 150–100 kyr ago (kyr = 1000 years), took away all hope that with adequate education, effort, and dedication, ethnic differences in intelligence would disappear like morning mist. These circumstances come rather close to what is known as learned helplessness, a phenomenon describing passive acceptance of uncontrollable aversive events (Seligman and Maier, 1967). The fierce reactions and criticism triggered by reports on individual differences in intelligence related to race or sex are not surprising, particularly at the time when Jensen’s article appeared in HER, and the memories of the Nazi Holocaust were still vivid and folk knowledge about genetics was limited. It was also the first time after the Second World War that someone had stated that a genetic factor accounts for the difference in black and white intelligence. In a several-hour conversation with Jared Taylor in 1992, reprinted in American Renaissance (10/29/2012), Arthur Jensen expressed similar opinions:

    The view being a very common one today, still, that blacks would be no different from the rest of us — the rest of the population—if they simply had the same education and all of that. […] This is probably the most highly valued trait. When people are asked what characteristics they want their children most to have, the two things they mention first are good health and good intelligence. If you suggest that people differ in intelligence for reasons that they themselves are not responsible for, because of the particular assortment of genes they happen to get, this seems terribly unfair. I think that World War II was really the main turning point in this. We’d been headed in that direction [egalitarianism], but the turning point, I think, was the revulsion against the Nazi Holocaust. People pointed to that as an example of what would happen if we recognized differences.

    1.1. Intelligence—the most valued trait

    Let’s look at an example from folk psychology.b When asked about your IQ, being either above or below average, the majority would say that it is above average. This is of course impossible as average by definition means that half of the population is above and half below average. The tendency to overly favorably judge our abilities is called illusory superiority (Kruger and Dunning, 1999). The authors found that particularly those whose performance on ability tests was in the bottom quartile grossly overestimated their performance. Even though they scored at the 12th percentile, they estimated their performance being at the 62nd percentile. This was explained as a deficit in metacognitive skill—knowing how well one is performing. Predominantly men have been found to be notorious exaggerators when it comes to identifying their own IQ, which is known as the hubris-humility effect. The bias that men significantly overestimate and women significantly underestimate their abilities is strongest for mathematical–logical and spatial IQ subtests, followed by overall (g) and verbal IQ subtests. It was suggested that the observed sex differences might result from implicit theories of intelligence—men are believed to perform better on mathematical-logical and spatial tests (Furnham et al., 2002; Storek and Furnham, 2013). The explanation sounds plausible, although it struggles to explain why the same pattern of male hubris is observed for performance on tests of emotional intelligence (Petrides and Furnham, 2000). The construct of intelligence will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, therefore only a brief commentary will be presented in order to aid understanding of the argumentation. The construct of intelligence usually consists of a verbal and a performance component. Thorndike (1920) added a third component called social intelligence. Due to a lack of adequate tests, the third component was ignored in mainstream intelligence research in the early years of the 20th century. In recent years however, this has changed, particularly with the introduction of the construct of emotional intelligence (EI)—the ability to recognize emotion, reason with emotion, and emotion-related information, and process emotional information as part of general problem-solving (Mayer et al., 2000). It was found that females surpass males on EI (Amelang and Steinmayr, 2006; Mayer et al., 2000; Van Rooy et al., 2005) and on emotional awareness, which is a similar construct (Boden and Berenbaum, 2007; Ciarrochi et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2003). Even though we are not aware of a study that would report sex differences in implicit theories of EI,c I assume that folk psychology would judge that women score higher on that trait, comparable to verbal fluency. Therefore, in my opinion the reason for the male tendency to overestimate their own intelligence must be seen in a broader, more evolutionary context and not just as a result of the influence of peoples’ concepts on judgment. Intelligence is regarded as one of the most highly valued traits, thus, having a high IQ means an advantage, and having a low IQ is a handicap. Hence males’ overestimations of their intellectual abilities well be part of their mating strategy—increasing attractiveness to catch the attention of possible mates, similar to courtship displayed in response to precopulatory sexual selection observed in many animal species. Support for our hypothesis lends the finding that males who perceive themselves as more successful tend to opt for short-term mating (Landolt et al., 1995). Our hypothesis is also supported by Miller (2000) proposing that during human evolution, mate choice focused increasingly on intelligence as a major indicator of biological fitness. Miller has even gone one step further, suggesting that many human behaviors like conversation, music production, artistic ability, and humor may have evolved principally to advertise intelligence during courtship.

    1.1.1. Once Upon a Time in Africa

    The general opinion that it is smart to be smart is also shared by nature in applying principles of selection to human evolution, thereby favoring intelligence and brain development more than other traits or organs. The work of Darwin (1871) propelled the idea that human intelligence is related to a correspondingly large brain. According to Wilson (1978), no organ in the history of human evolution has grown faster than the brain. When, roughly 4 million years ago, true men diverged from their ape ancestors the brain added about a tablespoonful (16 cm³) every 100 kyr. The rate continued until the appearance of modern men some 250 kyr ago. Geary (2005) in his book The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence, proposed that the rapid expansion of brain size, which is assumed to covary with intelligence (n-weighted r = 0.20; Vernon et al., 2000), resulted from a shift from ecological dominance to social selection pressures. However, there is still some controversy about the weight these different selection pressures had on the evolution of intelligence. Among the most essential pressures identified were: climatic, ecological, social, and cultural/social learning (Geary, 2005; Reader et al., 2011).

    The turnover-pulse hypothesis (TPH), put forward by Vrba (1975,  1993), is probably the most known theory on the effects of climatic and geological changes on evolution. The hypothesis makes predictions about the potential response of species to large-scale climatic changes, like glaciations and global cooling, considering them to be a major cause of faunal turnover—extinction, speciation, and migration. The THP has inspired debate and controversial viewpoints either in favor of the hypothesis, or suggesting that climate change had a minor impact on human development (Faith and Behrensmeyer, 2013). The ecological intelligence hypotheses suggested that foraging challenges drove human brain evolution (Parker and Gibson, 1977). Among the most essential are shifts to more energy-rich or more easily processed diets, constraints related to the complexity of cognitive maps to cover the size of home range and inertial navigation (day journey length). The main critique of the ecological hypothesis was that the costs of maintaining a large brain would be a waste of energy when used just to increase the capability of searching for food and supplies. The selection factor to develop large brains is insufficient to overcome the steep cost gradient (Dunbar, 1998). Dunbar’s argument is based on the well known fact that our brain represents about 2% of the body weight but consumes about 20% of total energy intake (Aiello and Wheele, 1995). The percentage of brain energy consumption in other species is much lower (and remarkably constant) than the one observed in humans. In 42 species, mainly mammals, this percentage was estimated between 2 and 8% (Mink et al., 1981).d The question is, why would primates or humans need larger brains than other species in order to accomplish the same job? In the late 1980s, an alternative hypothesis suggested that primates’ larger brains reflect the demands of complex social interactions involving processes such as tactical deception and coalition-formation. This was termed the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, albeit the term social intelligence hypothesis is preferred (Dunbar, 1998). Yet another theory dubbed the cultural intelligence hypothesis suggested that the superiority of social learning (learning by observation of others) over independent individual exploration provided opportunities to learn vital cultural and routine skills (van Schaik et al., 2012).

    Comparisons of these conflicting hypotheses are flawed by serious methodological problems. Variables that separate the theories like group size (social intelligence hypothesis) or diet (ecological intelligence hypothesis) are intercorrelated and are measured with considerable error. Further, the authors of the conflicting theories used different scaling factors for their brain measures. Advocates of the social intelligence hypothesis relied on measures of neocortex size relative to the size of the rest of the brain, rather than on the size of the whole brain relative to body size, as did the supporters of the ecological intelligence hypotheses. It was argued that a better understanding of the enlargement of the human brain during evolution could be obtained by research focusing on microscopic and macroscopic brain anatomy (Barton, 2006).

    An example of the microscopic level of study is the nutritional neurotrophic neoteny theory, put forward by Amen-Ra (2007). Amen-Ra argued that human encephalization is paradoxical. Because brain tissue is in metabolic terms highly expensive, enlarging its volume in periods of limited food resources makes no sense. Two strands of research attempted to explain this paradox. In an intriguing study, Bodoky et al. (1995) compared the levels of energy (ATP concentration) in the brain relative to the liver in three groups of rats on different dietary regimes: ad libitum access to food; continuous parenteral infusion of nutrients (100% of the daily intake) and 4 days of complete food deprivation. They found substantially reduced levels of ATP in the liver of the starving group of rats, while there were no differences in brain ATP levels compared to the other two groups of rats that had full access to food. These findings support the theory of preferential supply of nutrients to the brain. The second strand of research investigates the influence of caloric restriction on expression of neurotrophins which facilitate influx of glucose into neurons, and promote the proliferation of neural precursor cells that are similar to stem cells (Burkhalter et al., 2003; Kolb and Whishaw, 2009). Lee et al. (2000) found that keeping adult rats on a dietary restriction resulted in a significant increase in the number of newly produced neural cells in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. In humans, the hippocampus has been linked to episodic and autobiographic memory formation and particularly the formation of autonoetic awareness of time, which allows us to time travel to the past and future (Kolb and Whishaw, 2009). It can be therefore concluded that caloric restriction promotes the preservation of progenitor neurons in cortical regions involved in memory. Better memory is not only beneficial in search for food and resources, but particularly important in social interaction and learning. To this day, I am embarrassed when at work somebody greets me, starts a conversation and I have no idea who that person might be.

    On a macroscopic level, two competing theories have evolved: mosaic versus global brain evolution. A simplified description of the difference between the competing views was put forward by Finlay et al. (2001). The mosaic evolution theory suggests that brain areas can be discriminated according to their function, hence, evolution must have enabled such development. Parts of the system can change (e.g., auditory or vision systems) while the rest of the system is left mostly unchanged. On the other hand, the global brain evolution theory suggests that the whole system changed in response to selection pressures. Finlay et al. (2001) compared multiple regressions on allometric data for 131 mammalian species. The main findings supported the global evolution theory indicating that for 9 out of 11 brain structures, taxonomic and body size factors were less important than covariance of these major structures with each other. This explanation seems plausible, especially in the view of contemporary brain theories that describe the brain’s connectome architecture as a comprehensive network map of the nervous system of a given organism. A review of empirical and computational studies strongly suggested that brain hubse play important roles in information integration underpinning complex cognitive function (van den Heuvel and Sporns, 2013). This idea can be traced back to Harry Jerison (1991) who viewed the brain as a mapping machine, in which maps are different representations (sensory and motor) of the external world. The author further proposed that the number of these maps is related to the complexity of viewing and representing the external world. Therefore, the increase in relative brain size can be explained as a need for improving ways of knowing reality. For example, the squirrel has three visual areas, the owl monkey has 14 representations of the visual world, and for humans it is estimated that there are 30 visual areas, therefore we can see 27 kinds of things which the squirrel cannot see (Kaas, 1987; Kolb and Whishaw, 2009).

    Alternatively, the mosaique evolution theory advocates an independent size change in individual brain components. An example is Falk’s radiator theory (1990)—the author devised it based on two personal, yet unrelated events: a comment of her mechanic that the engine can only be as big as the radiator can cool, and a letter from a colleague informing her that emissary veins contribute to the regulation of brain temperature. Combining these two pieces of information led her to the radiator theory suggesting that vascular systems of early bipeds became reoriented allowing for less limited growth of the ape’s brain. Falk observed a difference in the vein distribution between robust australopithecines and graciie aystraiopithecine through Homo sapiens lineage. The latter had a widespread network of small veins allowing the brain to grow larger (Falk, 1990).

    To overcome the aforementioned limitations to explain variations in brain size due to evolutionary pressures, Geary (2005) proposed an evolved human disposition, labeled motivation to control, as the major drive of human behavior. Humans are motivated to control social relations, the behavior of other people, and biological and physical resources important for survival and reproduction. The concept is similar to Kelly’s (1955) core tendency of human personality which is to predict and control experienced events. Similar processes have been also identified in human ontogenetic development by Piaget and Inhelder (1974). Piaget suggested two complementary processes, assimilation and accommodation, to be involved in the construction of new concepts, that is, schemata. The process is triggered by an inconsistency that brings the equilibrium state of a schemata out of balance. Homeostasis is achieved either by incorporating new information into the already learned schemata (assimilation), or by changing the existing schemata and creating new knowledge (accommodation). A nice example of this process is that of a child having developed a schemata of a cat, which when seen is called mau-mau. The child applies the same mau-mau schemata when he or she sees a squirrel (assimilation). It is likely that parental intervention pointing out that this is not a cat but a squirrel has no immediate effect on the child’s concept. Only when the child recognizes an inconsistency in the mau-mau concept that is triggered, for example, by the bushy tail of the squirrel that is different from that of a cat, a new concept is formed (accommodation).

    Even though there is no consensus on how different selection pressures affected the evolution of human intelligence, there is general agreement that these pressures shaped our ancestors about 1.8 million years ago, most likely Homo ergaster/erectus in eastern Africa. H. erectus was a globetrotter—its remains were found in Java, China, and parts of southern Europe (Gabunia et al., 2000). Because the exact relationships among hominid species are not known, they constitute a discontinuous sequence with a Common ancestor at the base and H. sapiens at the top (Johanson and Edey, 1990). Initially, only fossil remains that showed evidence of stone tool manufacturing were included in the taxonomy of the Homo genus. More contemporary classifications grant inclusion based on brain size, inferences about language ability, hand function, and assumptions about expertise in making stone tools (Wood and Collard, 1999). Although there is some disagreement about the inclusion of certain species into the Human genus, the general pattern is clear (Geary, 2005). Fig. 1.1 shows absolute brain volumes of the human family, based on different reports found in the literature (Johanson and Edey, 1990; Wood and Collard, 1999; Geary, 2005). As can be seen in Fig 1.1, brain size in the australopiths increased modestly over a period of 1.5 million years, with almost a runaway increase when the first hominids appeared.

    Figure 1.1   Estimated brain volumes of the hominid species.

    The histogram is based on findings by Johanson and Edey (1981) and Wood and Collard (1999).

    The problem in comparing absolute measures of brain volume is that brain size is highly correlated with body mass and that this relationship is not linear (Alba, 2010). Cross-species comparisons can therefore be biased. For example, the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), has a brain mass of about 8028 g, which is almost six times the size of a human brain that weighs about 1300 g (Marino et al., 2007). However, we do not expect the sperm whale to be smarter than we are, as already established by Darwin (1871) suggesting that intellect cannot be accurately determined by just looking at the cubic content of a skull.

    There are at least two reasons why brain size increased, a cognitive one due to selection pressures for increasing intelligence, and a passive one due to an increase in body mass, which required more brain for the maintenance of a greater body (Deaner et al., 2007). Harry Jerison (1973) solved the problem by proposing an allometric regression measure—the encephalization quotient (EQ), which is the ratio between actual brain size and expected brain size based on body mass. For example, an EQ of 1 has been estimated for the cat. Fig. 1.2 shows EQ values based on the available body and brain masses in the literature (Johanson and Edey, 1990; Wood and Collard, 1999). The EQ values reported in the literature slightly differ in size due to methodological issues, mainly because a different scaling relation between body and brain mass was assumed. For modern humans, EQ values lie between 5.0 and 7.0, with most estimates between 5.0 and 6.0 (Geary, 2005).

    Figure 1.2   Estimated encephalization quotients (EQ) of the hominid species.

    The histogram is based on findings by Johanson and Edey (1981), Ruff et al. (1997), Wood and Collard (1999), and Alba (2010). Brain mass was derived from cranial capacity using the formula: Brain mass = 1.147 × cranial capacity⁰.⁹⁷⁶. EQ was derived using Martin’s (1981) relation between body mass in (kg) and brain mass in (g): EQ = brain mass/11.22 × body mass⁰.⁷⁶.

    As can be seen in Fig. 1.2, the EQ value of the australopithecines is less than half of that of modern humans, while Homo ergaster’s EQ value is more than half of Homo sapiens’s EQ value. Ruff et al. (1997) suggested that EQ began reaching its peak with the first anatomically modern humans approximately 90 kyr ago and has since remained fairly constant. However, absolute brain size has decreased by 11% in the last 35 kyr, of which the last 10 kyr were associated with a decrease of 8%. This decrease was accompanied by a corresponding decrease in body mass, thus EQ values remained stable.

    1.1.2. Intelligence, Still a Story of Success

    The finding that absolute brain size has decreased for 8% in the last 10 kyr has given rise to some speculations that the urge for being intelligent—brilliant has lessened because the environmental pressures have become weaker (Geary, 2005). Is human intelligence still evolving? Hunter (2009) suggested that we might have reached a point where being highly intelligent no longer represents a selective advantage, or this might even be reversed in some societies. For the latter, he provided an example of the genocidal government in Cambodia who slaughtered those deemed as brilliant, as they would represent a threat to the regime. At the moment, the answer to this question remains elusive because we are dealing with EQ or skull size on the one hand and IQ on the other. EQ values of Hominid were derived from estimates of brain size and body mass for a limited number of fossil remains of skulls, based on a time scale of about 4 to 2 million years. Another aspect that has to be considered is the correlation between head size and intelligence. Vernon et al. (2000) analyzed 35 studies with a total sample of 56,793 subjects and obtained an n-weighted correlation of 0.20. A rough estimation would be that skull size can explain about 4% of intelligence. In contrast, IQ is based on paper-and-pencil tests that are thought to represent the theoretical construct of intelligence,f with a recorded history of data collection of less than 100 years. The difference in the time scale used to predict a change is therefore enormous, even if we consider a longer period of 40–10 kyr, when it is assumed that early modern humans appeared.

    I will provide some recent data and observations on the influence of intelligence on success in life suggesting that changes in brain structure and function provide a better explanation for the decrease in absolute brain size, implying that even in modern civilizations, intelligence still represents a selective advantage. A metaanalysis of several correlational studies between intelligence and success in life defined as socioeconomic success (academic and job performance), has shown correlations around (0.50), with academic performance being the highest (0.58), followed by educational attainment (0.56), job performance estimated by supervisory rating, (0.53) and occupational attainmentg (0.43). The number of individuals included in the metaanalysis was 191,033 (Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Poropat, 2009; Strenze, 2007;  2015). It could be argued that, in modern societies, intelligence explains approximately 30% of success in academic and job performance. Lynn and Vanhanen (2012) used a different approach by correlating national IQs (based on the results of individual testing in countries) with the same standard measures as described earlier, and with other variables, such as political institutions (democracy), health, demographic, and sociological variables (e.g., crime, corruption, religiosity), geographic, and climatic variables. The correlations between health variables and IQ are worth mentioning. Geary (2005) and Hunter (2009) postulated that intelligence affects one’s professional career but is less related to mortality or reproduction than it was in the past (Geary, 2005; Hunter, 2009). Based on an analysis of 24 studies, Lynn and Vanhanen (2012) reported negative correlations between national IQ and infant mortality, ranging between −0.34 and −0.84 (6 studies, N = 792; n-weighted r = −0.84), and positive correlations between national IQ and life expectancy, ranging from 0.51 to 0.84 (8 studies; N = 1033; n-weighted r = 0.78). Both findings do not confirm the prediction put forward by Geary. However, critics would argue that correlations between ill-defined and measured constructs are not evidence that human intelligence has undergone selection in the modern era.

    Ability data (i.e., intelligence test data, and more ecological measures of intellectual success, like achievements in art and science) obtained for Ashkenazih Jews, identified as Jewish individuals of Central and Eastern European ancestry, may provide a better explanation of the issue. The Ashkenazi represent the majority of modern Jews. A recent study showed that Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) can trace their roots back to a group of merely ≈350 individuals (Carmi et al., 2014). Contemporary AJ formed 600–800 years ago as a fusion of two ancestral populations: European and Middle Eastern. It is assumed that the split between these two ancestral populations occurred around the time of the last glacial maximum (20.4–22.1 kyr), with a bottleneck around 85–94 kyr, roughly corresponding to the out-of-Africa event (Carmi et al., 2014).

    As reported in several studies carried out mainly on the US and UK populations of Jews, their average IQ is estimated to be between 110–115 IQ points. If adjusted for the secular increase of intelligence (Flynn effect), the value is estimated to be around 110 IQ points (Lynn and Longley, 2006). At first glance, the difference is not impressive, but when mapped to the high end of the normal distribution, with a standard deviation of 15, we end up with 6 times as many Jews with an IQ higher than 140 as compared to other northern Europeans (Cochran et al., 2006). To avoid the IQ trap so often attracted by critiques, Lynn and Longley (2006) also reported data on the number of Jewish Nobel prize laureates in the United Kingdom and the United States, Fellows of the Royal Society (UK), and academic affiliates of elite colleges (US) in relation to their number in the population, comparing data between the first and second half of the 20th century. Jews were overrepresented among Nobel prize winners by factors of 8.0 and 12.3 in Britain and in the United States, respectively, and were also overrepresented among Fellows of the Royal Society in the United Kingdom. The most recent statistics concerning Jewish Nobel laureates, as provided by Heilman (2015), revealed that since 1901 when the first Nobel prize was awarded, 855 individuals have received it and about 193 (22%) of those who received this award were of Jewish origin. Jews, however, constitute a miniscule part of the world’s population (less than 0.2%). For comparison, the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates for the time period between 1901 and 1962 was estimated to be 16% (Weyl and Possony, 1963). The data point toward an increase in the number of Jewish Nobel laureates in the second half of the 20th century. A similar trend (Fig. 1.3), can be inferred for the data analyzed by Lynn and Longley (2006), suggesting that being highly intelligent represents a selective advantage even in modern developed societies.

    Figure 1.3   Estimated over-represented factors for Jewish Nobel prize laureates in United States for the first and second half of the 20th century.

    The estimates are based on data obtained from the literature (Lynn and Longley, 2006). The factors are calculated as the ratio between the percentages of Jews awarded the Nobel prize and the estimated percentage of Jews in the total population.

    Another aspect worth mentioning is that the data are also indicative for a certain amount of malleability of intelligence, not just on a scale of a million years, but also in a shorter time period of one or two generations. This is an important aspect given that the main topic of this book centers on the possibility of increasing intelligence. The mechanisms that might have triggered such a development in the Ashkenazi Jews are diverse, pointing to an interaction between genetic properties and environmental pressures selecting for IQ (Cochran et al., 2006). According to Lynn and Longley (2006), the environmental pressures have been explained by three theories: the eugenic hypothesis, the persecution hypothesis, and the discrimination hypothesis. A fourth theory could be dubbed as educational, albeit not explicitly labeled as such (Heilman, 2015). The eugenic hypothesis proposed that Jews’ customs to promote marriage between highly intelligent rabbis and other scholars with the daughters of wealthy merchants can be classified as an eugenic practice that has promoted a greater number of surviving children of the higher intelligent (MacDonald, 1994; Weyl and Possony, 1963). The persecution hypothesis implied that smart Jews had a greater chance to escape or avoid being killed by gentiles. Harassment of Jews is documented throughout history (Weyl and Possony, 1963). The discrimination hypothesis advanced by Cochran et al. (2006) states that in the Middle Ages, Jews in Europe were not allowed to engage in certain kinds of occupation, such as masons, smiths, or arrow makers, and were only permitted to engage in jobs requiring high intelligence, such as moneylenders, tax collectors, import–export merchants, or to deal in second hand goods as traveling vendors. Heilman (2015) suggested that Jewish education, which promotes questioning and allows disobedience in the pursuit of truth, might be the key educational approach that positively affects creativity and intelligence. He backed up the hypothesis via examples from the Midrash commenting and explaining texts of the Torah, but also with the help of texts describing Jewish culture and education. This reminds me of an anecdote I usually tell students when I give a lecture about the concepts of functional fixedness and einstellung—problem solving set. The story is about a Rabbi trying to enhance what we would today call divergent thinking in his student Joshua. The Rabbi told Joshua about two chimneysweepers who fell down a chimney—the face of one of them was clean while the face of the other was sooty. The Rabbi asked Joshua who of the two will wash his face. Joshua’s swift response was that the man with the dirty face will wash it. The Rabbi disagreed, suggesting that the one with the clean face will wash his face, because he will see the other man with the sooty face, assuming that his face is also dirty. The next day, the Rabbi repeats the story and asks the same question. This time, Joshua’s answer is that the man with the clean face will wash his face. Yet again, the Rabbi is not satisfied with his answer, stating that the man with the clean face will tell his colleague that he has a sooty face. Joshua gives up, but the Rabbi says: if both have fallen down the chimney, how is it even possible that one would have a clean face and the other a dirty one?

    It has been proposed that the combination of the aforementioned environmental constraints and the closure to inward gene flow observed in Askenazi Jews led to an increase in specific genetic variants, in particular the well-known clusters of Ashkenazi genetic diseases, the sphingolipid cluster, and the DNA repair cluster (Cochran et al., 2006). The sphingolipid mutations act as IQ boosters promoting axonal growth and branching (Schwarz et al., 1995). Further support for this hypothesis comes from the finding that cortical expansion in Homo ergaster/erectus is assumed to be related to increases in the number of axons and the size of dendrites rather than increases in the number of neurons (Geary, 2005). As discussed earlier, this is in line with the contemporary assumption on brain function and structure defining it as a dense connectome thereby allowing for virtually unconstrained interactions among any pairs of neurons in the brain, either through direct connections or via brain hubs (van den Heuvel and Sporns, 2013).

    Another aspect worth mentioning is the fact that most of the UK and US Jews originated from impoverished areas in Eastern Europe and despite the discrimination they faced in their new homes, it can be assumed that their socioeconomic status (SES) improved, which could to some extent explain their increase in IQ. The heritability of intelligence increases from about 30% in early childhood to about 80% in adulthood (Spinath et al., 2003; Edmonds et al., 2008; for a more contemporary viewpoint see Nisbett et al., 2012), and is to some extent related to SES (low versus high) as shown in a study by Turkheimer et al. (2003) and replicated by Harden et al. (2007). The results of both studies point toward a gene–environmental interaction. For children from impoverished families (lower SES), shared environmental influences explained nearly 60% of the variance in IQ, while genetic factors accounted for a negligible variance.

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1